Going Medieval--Reviews of Medieval Scenarios

[Exile]

There are a number of medieval scenarios out there. Some are better than others. Some are great, and some are just short of being great. All tend to have certain things in common. In this thread, I'll periodically review some of these scenarios. Their strengths and weaknesses will be noted, known bugs will be spotted (and sometimes fixed w/new files), and general playability vs. accuracy issues addressed.

The middle ages scenarios are colorful and yet sometimes difficult, both to play and design. Balancing all the necessary elements to generate a situation that is both pleasing to the eye, and is fun/challenging is more difficult than it might seem at first. Many designers have produced medieval scenarios, and some even specialize in the period. Typically, designers focus on one or more civs, making them as accurate as possible, but leave less-well known civs rudimentary. This is symptomatic; they were called the dark ages for a reason.

Now on to the first scenario . . .

[Exile]

TAMERLANE

Tamerlane is a scenario designed by Markus Eklund, an early pioneer of the civ2 scenario world. He's created a good number of works, but this one stands out.

Like many medieval scenarios, Tamerlane is designed to be played ONLY as the Timurid civ. Markus makes this clear in several ways, but the most potent is the event which destroys the timurid civ (and all its cities!) if the Tamerlane unit is killed. While this certainly makes it clear what the author intended, deleting this event can instantly make the game playable as one of the other civs, something that can't be done otherwise.

This one requires some careful maneuvering on the first few turns, but becomes fun to play as the game progresses. It is a pure conquest scenario; the government/taxation setting at start has no research ongoing. The government setting will also never change, making the fiscal situation eternally precarious.

The elements in this scenario are very well balanced. The units are powerful, yet vulnerable; no unit has more than 1 hit point. There is a constant negotiation between fiscal necessity and war production. Money will almost always be a problem, and only caravans will help, but unit production is vital to continued conquest, which is yet another way to gain wealth through citytaken events which deliver cash. This is a very large map, but delightfully accurate, and demands some exploration as campaigns move into new regions.

Options abound. There are a number of strategic decisions to be made throughout the game, and this is a vital element in replay value. Consolidation or expansion? Who to conquer next? It's a good idea to; use diplomacy to isolate foes, light cavalry to scout large areas of open terrain, and careful spending to develop conquered cities. The game moves very fast, administration is kept to a minimum, and the focus is on meticulously-planned military campaigns that capitalize on your mobility and striking power against dangerous, but less mobile enemies. Time is a factor; the game only runs for 104 turns. Given the size of the map and the movement of units, the silk road/railway is essential. This tends to keep the game in the areas of historical action.

Overall, this is a stirling scenario where everything fits together and thereby enhances the joy of playing. Historically, Tamerlane conquered a LOT of territory in a very brief time. The attempt to duplicate this in civ2 terms will prove challenging.

There are two things that require change. The first is an event that uses the "anybody" parameter to award cash to kills of caravans. The "anybody" parameter is a known bug. In his own words, "Enemy caravans give 100 gold if you kill them." To do this, one must erase the event and place six new events, each one giving the award for killed caravans of the other civs. If this is done, ALL enemy caravans will give awards. The second change is more controversial, but was, I believe, an oversight. Some of the Delhi units have the alpine ability. Turning this off makes for a much more realistic game. Even more effective would be the placement of a number of non-mobile Timurid impassable units along the southern edge of the himalayas. The idea that Indian military units would be simply wandering around in the most forbidding mountains on earth is frustratingly unrealistic, and is the only significant problem with this scenario.

[Exile]

Age of Alexius

AoA is one of four Roman/Byzantine scenarios by Masis Panos. I strongly suggest sampling his others, but this one is unique.

This scenario can theoretically be played as any civ, but for practical reasons, only as the Franks. The initial task in this game is to move the crusader army from its starting point at Constantinople to the campaign areas in Asia minor and beyond. Masis has given the player a truly giant army, full of many units of various types. There are several kinds of infantry, fanatics, light siege weapons, a crowd of bishop/spies, no less than 20 heavy cavalry, which are the strongest buildable units in the game, and the historical leaders of the first Crusade. This scenario is strong on historical touches, and the unit mix contains a number of leaders, including Bohemund, Raymond, and various regional kings. With the seizure of Alexandretta, the Franks are event-awarded three extremely powerful siege units, unlike siege units in other games in that they have high defense values as well as high attack and firepower numbers. Another similar event occurs when the Franks take Acre. LARGE money rewards are available throughout the game for taking specified cities. The cash is needed to improve captured cities because improvements are MUCH more expensive than normal. Because the tech paradigm is set to 500/10 (!) research is very difficult, and would require a concentrated effort over a long period.

This scenario does tend to direct the player, but leaves a broad range of strategic options open. The first crusade made its way across anatolia and into the levant very quickly, and the game compels an astute player to also do so, in order to garner event-driven cash and unit awards that are absolutely vital to conquest.

The real forte of this scenario is its overall atmosphere; the visual aspect seems very "medieval," created by a pleasant blend of graphics. The map is very large, and laboriously created to give best city locations, terrain features, and special resources. The icons file is also redone with new and interesting graphics, all the author's creations. The units also fit within this visual presentation; some are multi-figure types, mostly the heavy infanty types, but there are several varieties of islamic cavalry, caravans (which, if killed by the Franks give large cash event-awards), and a number of special units. The city graphics are also the author's work, as are the flags and fortresses, and add a finishing touch to the visual feel of the scenario.

In terms of gameplay, this is both a conquest and development scenario. Invariably, the Franks will create a large empire, and will also be required to build a palace somewhere quickly as they start with NO cities. Because of the immense size of the Frankish force, virtually any strategic option is available; this game is very "open."

This is a very enjoyable scenario that requires the right balance of administration and conquest. It is also organic, in that the Frankish empire will necessarily grow over time, slowly adding both strength and military obligations as its territory expands.

There are several problems that require resolution before this scenario can be truly playable. Several events relocate a killed king right back in the city where they appear at start. These are no movement units, and the result of killing them is that they simply reappear in that same city. I interpret this as an oversight, and eliminate these events. Otherwise the cities that these units occupy cannot be taken. This is an easy fix, the other fixes are not. Masis has made both the Rum Seljuk civ and the Great Seljuk civ the same color, and given them the same adjective. Giving the Rum Seljuks another color is simple and advisable, but the adjective negates at least one event, which never fires. Once the adjective is altered, the event functions. A trickier problem is the simple fact that, on the very first turn, 2 out of 3 times the Byzantine player will occupy the square needed for the Frankish player to move on towards the holy land (!). The fix is to make the Frankish player the protagonist. Another tricky aspect is the diplomacy, especially between the Byzantine and Frank civs. There are distinct adavantages in having a perpetual alliance between the two, but it can also be frustrating not to have the option to attack. This can be remedied, but requires (probably) several Bishop/spies expended, some malicious destruction of Byzantine city improvements, and, once war is declared, it is permanent--there is no way to make peace, except by the total elimination of the Byzantine Empire--difficult, but possible. Although the other civs might seem fun to play, both the Armenian and Georgian civs are extremely weak, unproductive, and surrounded by enemies that are much more powerful. And, although the Islamic states might seem powerful enough, the real problem is the AI's frustrating inability to get the crusader army away from its starting square. Once again, the protagonist solution helps, but does not alleviate this problem.

[Exile]

Hammer of the North

Hammer is a recreation of the Viking Age, starting with the Lindisfarne raid and ending at the beginning of the high medieval period. This scenario was Morten Blaabjerg's first, but this version has been extensively reworked, to good cause, and is a very wide-open game.

The civs are; Danes, Norse, Germans, Franks, Frisians, Anglo-Saxons, and Scots/Irish. This choice is curious, and I wonder why the Frisians were selected over the more obvious choice of the Swedes. Beyond that, this scenario is engaging and fun to play as almost any civ, with the exception of the Scots/Irish and Anglo-Saxons, who seem to be the objects of most of the game's aggressive military action (at least initially). The prime civs are, of course, the Danes and Norse, and both of these can begin to expand by conquest, establish new towns, and conduct exploration, all right from the very first turn. A very fluid situation exists, again from the opening turn, and any number of strategic options present themselves. Should one eliminate the other viking states as a prelude to more profound conquests? Is colonization of remote regions like Iceland, Jamtland, and Russia advisable? The British Isles are very vulnerable in the beginning, and Morten has set things up so that it's virtually inevitable that the Danes carve out an empire there. Raiding is an integral element of the game. Killing enemy settler units generates cash event rewards, and viking units appear via events both in the British Isles and on the French coastlands. Many of the viking units are amphibious, making naval action even more advisable.

Morten uses very strong barbarian & player civ units to channel conquest into certain areas and to preserve impregnable fortresses for some civs. The unit mix is good, and includes a number of types, mostly infantry, with varying abilities and hit points, but also contains the very strong viking Drakkar longship unit. As the scenario progresses, however, some of the powerful viking units become obsolete and the foes of the vikings acquire more powerful units.

Fearless in the face of history, the author has added several fantasy elements into the scenario. These actually work well, and do not detract from the overall feel of the world of the viking conquests. There are giants in the game, and they will appear very occasionally in remote regions, although, in one instance, a goody hut provided one. There is also the Prince/King/sword-in-the-stone trick. Not very often, a Prince unit is event-generated to each of the civs. This unit, though very powerful, is a destroyed-after-attack unit. Scattered around the map are sword-in-the-stone units, too powerful to be killed by producible units, but CAN be killed by the Prince units. When this happens, a King unit is generated in the civ's capital city, which is even more powerful than the Prince unit, and does not vanish after attacking. There are also Hero units, event-generated at long intervals, that are powerful, though not as powerful as Kings. The most powerful fantasy element is tech-driven. It is the Hammer/Nuke, and requires several techs to reach, costs quite a bit to produce, and is rapidly obsoleted, sometimes quite unintentionally.

This scenario is very enjoyable to play, primarily because so many options exist for the viking players, though playing as the other civs can also be fun. The fantasy elements add both atmosphere and humor to the game, and the units, techs, icons, and wonders all fit very well.

The problems with this scenario are minimal, if indeed, these are not simply matters of taste, difficulty level, and mastery of the game. The tech seems to come too fast, and a SLIGHTLY higher paradigm might ease this. In Britain, with AI-run Anglo-Saxons and Danes, Danish event-delivered units flood the map. This is the result of a very low "random" number in the event. If this proves undesirable, simply incrementally increasing this number should fix it. Although I like the units file, I do feel like this game could truly shine with a Garethization.

[techumseh]

Interesting. Thanks, Exile!

[Case]

Those are great reviews. I remember having a ball with Hammer of the North.

[fairline]

Great reviews and tips Phenix :b

For some reason I never got round to playing Hammer of the North. I think I will now I've read your review, and the masochist in me wants to play as the Anglo-Saxons...

BTW, which of the many Byzantine scenarios out there is your favourite? I always liked Fading Lights and DAROE myself.

[curtsibling]

Hammer of the North is one of my all time faves! (along with 1870)

I liked the fact that in Hammer, you could play as the Vikings (always cool)
and see how long you could last out before you converted to christianity!

It really needs a ToT conversion!

[Exile]

You're welcome Brian, Case, Gareth, and Ciaran.

There are several more Scenarios that I'll review, and DAROAE is one of them. Gareth, you'll like Hammer--it's a gem. Mamelukes, Shaibani, Fire & Roses, Justinian, and Inomine will be reviewed. When all these are done, I'll produce an overall review and discuss some of the principles and concepts that constitute a good medieval scenario.

[curtsibling]

Looking forward to that! A real master class.

[Eivind IV]

Good job!

Before new years, you may find another medieval scen to review (been working on one for quite some time).

[Catfish]

Originally posted by curtsibling
I liked the fact that in Hammer, you could play as the Vikings (always cool) and see how long you could last out before you converted to christianity!

It really needs a ToT conversion!

Well, here you go then:

Hammer of the North 2.9 for ToT (548 kB)
Sounds (1.43 MB)

[curtsibling]

Excellent! You swept in like a glorious ToT cavalry regiment!



I'll begin making new files for this as an aside to my WW2 antics!

[Exile]

Death And Resurrection Of An Empire

a.k.a. DAROAE. This scenario recreates the very late history of the Byzantine Empire after the fourth crusade. Historically, this was a very dynamic period, full of alliances, treachery, and continuous warfare between montane warlords and remnants of the Empire.

The author, Mathias Koster, has engineered the scenario to mimic the historical situation in two ways--by attempting to control diplomacy exclusively through events, and by event-generating large Ottoman unit reinforcements after a specified turn. The events govern which civs can conduct warfare by having some civs start out allied with others. The human player cannot negotiate, and, even though some diplomacy does take place, makewar events negate most peace negotiations. On historically-determined turns, makewar events negate most alliances, so that by the scenario's end, most civs are at war, unable to make peace. The Ottoman civ will begin to expand when the Ottoman unit events begin to fire, and will slowly overrun its enemies. The reinforcements appear each turn and are powerful units. This is a common way to create the necessary military resources for an otherwise incompetent AI to surge forward in certain conquest. With these events in place, the Ottomans will conquer most of Anatolia.

Each civ faces wildly different situations. The Ottomans begin with a single city, but will become immensely powerful. The Latins have mighty armies and hold large cities, including Constantinople and the northern crusader areas, but are at war with virtually everyone, and will be, by the end of the game. The Venetians must play a sea-land game, but have peace initially to build and trade. The Epirotes and Niceans both are aimed at Constantinople, but from different sides of the map. Trebizond and the Serbs are weak, remnant mountain kingdoms, and though not strong enough to expand significantly, are still interesting to play.

Mattias went to great detail with his original unit mix, and that file stands out. He has given his units colorful and historically accurate uniforms and arms. The combination of these and the terrain graphics successfully creates a good medieval look for the scenario.

DAROAE also recreates the agricultural situation of the medieval era--demograpic growth vs. limited food supply. This scenario, like several others, has neatly set up a situation where populations will be limited. The combination of terrain values and governments keeps populations low and growth infrequent and desirable. One of the engaging elements of this scenario is the strategic flexibility of the sea-land approach to war and trade. There are a number of islands, including some that make strong bases, like Crete, Rhodes, and Cyprus, and trade with them is lucrative. Mathias also uses impassable units and fortresses to channel movement and campaigning, and this is another part of the scenario's overall emphasis on historical accuracy. The tech tree is also full of tricks, but those are best left to discover through play.

The only real difficulty with this scenario is playing as the Ottomans. Once the events begin delivering units every turn, the game simply becomes a war of attrition, wearing your opponents down through sheer numbers. For a challenge as a human playing the Ottomans, delete some or all of the events that deliver these units.

[Exile]

SHAIBANI

Stefan Hartel is a prolific scenario designer and Shaibani--the Quest for Khorassan, is among his best. This is a narrow-focus scenario detailing the late medieval campaigns of the Uzbeks of central Asia.

Two elements fit together to give Shaibani its unusual character; the map and unit movement. The scenario really has three primary civs, the Uzbeks, the Persian Safavids, and the Timurids, all of which have cavalry units that move 3 and are alpine. This means they can cover vast distances in short periods of time. The Map perfectly accomodates these high-movement units; it is expansive, colorful, detailed, and very large. The combination makes for a very "Mongol" game, with vast sweeps of cavalry scouting for enemies while main armies move ponderously across vast leagues toward distant enemy cities. The map alone deserves some comment. For centuries the regions depicted on this map have connected east Asia with the middle east, several times becoming the core area of empire-building nomad hordes. This map is an informative glance at that region, and is laid out diagrammatically, whether intentional or not.

This is a conquest scenario, with little time or need for development. It is intended to be played only as the Shaibanid Uzbeks, but the author says that the Timurid civ might also be playable. The intrigueing thing about this one is that it could probably be played as a three-person PBEM game. The AI can not plan a mongol strategy, but three persons could.

Stefan's scenarios almost always focus on Persian history, and this one is no exception. Although the Shaibanid Uzbeks can probably conquer most of the Timurid domains, the real foe will come from the east, out of Iran. Historically, the Safavids interrupted and cut short the Uzbek bid for power and established their own empire. The scenario neatly mimics that situation. The scenario is short, with a little less than 200 turns, making rapid campaigning necessary.

One of the problems with the civ engine is its inability to model the decline of empires, especially the political fragmentation that occurs after a state has expanded rapidly and begun to decline. Stefan deals with this by events which compel former allies, non-Shaibanid Uzbeks, to attack the Shaibanid civ with a makewar event, thus opening up another "front" for the Shaibani civ to manage.

One difficulty with this scenario is the fragility of many of the cities in Khorassan and Mawarannar. Too many times they are obliterated by attackers. This is a point scenario, and every city up in flames is points lost, even if you rebuild it. There is also the problem with caravan-killing; the "anybody" bug. The events file is not full, so creating a series of events so that the right civs recieve cash event-awards for caravan-killing is workable.